why 144hz why such a random number? why not 120hz?

[Glenwing]

 

that doesn't matter like at all.

 

now that makes sense though I think dvi can't do 1440p 144hz it can do 1080p 144 hz though. 

 

 

Dual-Link DVI officially caps at around 1080p 144Hz but people have gotten those korean ebay monitors working at up to 2560x1440 at 120Hz through overclocking.

 

 

At 144Hz each frame is repeated 3 times per eye at 120Hz you get 3 repeats to one eye for every 2 to the other, again it is a MINOR difference but it does make a difference.

 

This only matters when the frames are split between eyes (3D). For normal usage it doesn't make a difference.

 

The reason we have 144Hz now is because it is a larger number than 120Hz and therefore will capture sales and attention compared to 120Hz competition. That is the only reason. The difference is unnoticeable in practice. The reason it's 144 and not 143 or 145 is because 144 is the next multiple of 24 after 120, generally you want to stick to multiples of 24 so movies will stay smoother.

[Guest Strangerbob]

divides with 48 in whole numbers... so you can watch THE HABBIT with full immersion

[Grrizz]

This only matters when the frames are split between eyes (3D). For normal usage it doesn't make a difference.

Mentioned that in my original post

[Glenwing]

Mentioned that in my original post

 

Oh, sorry I didn't read enough

[Falkentyne]

144 divides into 24 evenly which is good for 3D movies, 120 divides into 24 unevenly which is fine for 2D but not ideal for 3D, 120 has the benefit of also evenly dividing into 30 and 60 so which is best to use depends on what you are viewing (only minor differences though).

 

Completely wrong, since 24 divides into both 120 and 144.

But yes it's a holdover.  Anyone remember the first "flicker free" SVGA monitors?

Anyone remember what refresh rate they ran?

 

72 hz.

So you can see how important that 144hz value is, in a way.

But as far as refresh rates, there's something EVERYONE is completely missing.

 

When using 500hz mice polling rates, you don't want to use 120hz refresh rate.

Why?

Because 120 does not divide evenly into 500.  If you do this, you will notice a slight jitter and stutter when moving or panning around (especially windows).  You will probably not notice this quite well unless you're using some form of scanning/stereoscopic backlight/blur reduction

 

The same goes for 1000hz. 120 does not divide into 1000 evenly.  The closest you get is 960, which means you're going to get some sync jitters.

 

What you actually want here is 125hz.  125hz divides evenly into :

125hz polling (8ms, yuck, but hey it's smooth).

250hz polling

500hz polling

1000hz polling.

 

This is the ideal refresh rate (assuming you are keeping framerate equal to refresh rate or are using 2d in windows scrolling) overall.  120hz is not.

 

Barring that, 100hz is a second choice.

evenly syncs with 500hz and 1000hz mouse polling,

but HORRIBLE For 125hz and 250hz polling--jitters galore.

 

As you can see, 144hz simply offers nothing over these except lower overall frame input lag (6.9 ms).

 

Keep in mind at all of this assumes you are using some sort of vertical sync (vsync).  if vsync is off, then all bets are off.

[Glenwing]

Completely wrong, since 24 divides into both 120 and 144.

But yes it's a holdover.  Anyone remember the first "flicker free" SVGA monitors?

Anyone remember what refresh rate they ran?

 

72 hz.

So you can see how important that 144hz value is, in a way.

But as far as refresh rates, there's something EVERYONE is completely missing.

 

When using 500hz mice polling rates, you don't want to use 120hz refresh rate.

Why?

Because 120 does not divide evenly into 500.  If you do this, you will notice a slight jitter and stutter when moving or panning around (especially windows).  You will probably not notice this quite well unless you're using some form of scanning/stereoscopic backlight/blur reduction

 

The same goes for 1000hz. 120 does not divide into 1000 evenly.  The closest you get is 960, which means you're going to get some sync jitters.

 

What you actually want here is 125hz.  125hz divides evenly into :

125hz polling (8ms, yuck, but hey it's smooth).

250hz polling

500hz polling

1000hz polling.

 

This is the ideal refresh rate (assuming you are keeping framerate equal to refresh rate or are using 2d in windows scrolling) overall.  120hz is not.

 

Barring that, 100hz is a second choice.

evenly syncs with 500hz and 1000hz mouse polling,

but HORRIBLE For 125hz and 250hz polling--jitters galore.

 

As you can see, 144hz simply offers nothing over these except lower overall frame input lag (6.9 ms).

 

Keep in mind at all of this assumes you are using some sort of vertical sync (vsync).  if vsync is off, then all bets are off.

3D splits frames between each eye, so 120Hz is 60Hz to each eye (not divisible by 24) while 144Hz in 3D would be 72Hz to each eye.

[Grrizz]

Completely wrong, since 24 divides into both 120 and 144.

But yes it's a holdover.  Anyone remember the first "flicker free" SVGA monitors?

Anyone remember what refresh rate they ran?

 

72 hz.

So you can see how important that 144hz value is, in a way.

But as far as refresh rates, there's something EVERYONE is completely missing.

 

When using 500hz mice polling rates, you don't want to use 120hz refresh rate.

Why?

Because 120 does not divide evenly into 500.  If you do this, you will notice a slight jitter and stutter when moving or panning around (especially windows).  You will probably not notice this quite well unless you're using some form of scanning/stereoscopic backlight/blur reduction

 

The same goes for 1000hz. 120 does not divide into 1000 evenly.  The closest you get is 960, which means you're going to get some sync jitters.

 

What you actually want here is 125hz.  125hz divides evenly into :

125hz polling (8ms, yuck, but hey it's smooth).

250hz polling

500hz polling

1000hz polling.

 

This is the ideal refresh rate (assuming you are keeping framerate equal to refresh rate or are using 2d in windows scrolling) overall.  120hz is not.

 

Barring that, 100hz is a second choice.

evenly syncs with 500hz and 1000hz mouse polling,

but HORRIBLE For 125hz and 250hz polling--jitters galore.

 

As you can see, 144hz simply offers nothing over these except lower overall frame input lag (6.9 ms).

 

Keep in mind at all of this assumes you are using some sort of vertical sync (vsync).  if vsync is off, then all bets are off.

With a movie running at the standard 24fps with a 120Hz monitor you get 5 (odd) repeats per frame, with a 144Hz monitor you get 6 (even) repeats per frame, when viewing 3D (shutter glasses style, not interlaced/checkered/etc.) you get one screen refresh sent to each eye alternating back and forth, this means at 120Hz for every frame one eye will receive 3 repeats while the other will only see 2 resulting in a very slight affect in the perceived brightness between each eye on each frame (alternating every frame). When you have 144Hz (6 repeats per frame) you have 3 repeats per eye providing a even brightness to each eye on each frame.

[Hikaru12]

Like it's been said in this thread, it's because it divides evenly by 24 so you get 6 complete repeated frames and no interpolation with 144hz. Even numbers and multiples of 24 are preferred. Hence, why some TVs have 240hz and Plasmas have 600hz (all are multiples of 24).

[Glenwing]

Like it's been said in this thread, it's because it divides evenly by 24 so you get 6 complete repeated frames and no interpolation with 144hz. Even numbers and multiples of 24 are preferred. Hence, why some TVs have 240hz and Plasmas have 600hz (all are multiples of 24).

There are no TVs with more than 120Hz refresh rate, numbers like 240Hz or 600Hz refer to other things besides the refresh rate, such as the backlight strobe frequency on LCDs or the sub-field drive on plasmas, while the refresh rate is still 60Hz. The "240Hz" and "600Hz" numbers you see on TVs literally have nothing to do with the refresh rate.

[Hikaru12]

There are no TVs with more than 120Hz refresh rate, numbers like 240Hz or 600Hz refer to other things besides the refresh rate, such as the backlight strobe frequency on LCDs or the sub-field drive on plasmas, while the refresh rate is still 60Hz. The "240Hz" and "600Hz" numbers you see on TVs literally have nothing to do with the refresh rate.

 

Are you sure that's the case even for Plasmas? Why then do they have the best motion sharpness among any panel type today?

[Glenwing]

On 8/11/2015 at 10:01 AM, Hikaru12 said:

Are you sure that's the case even for Plasmas? Why then do they have the best motion sharpness among any panel type today?

Because plasmas have a much faster pixel response time than LCDs, which gives them much less motion blur 

 

High refresh rates have zero effect on film content or broadcasts, which aren't higher than 60 Hz to begin with. So even if a plasma did have an actual 600 Hz refresh rate it wouldn't make the motion clarity any better or worse except on a computer.

 

And, HDMI 1.4 caps at 1080p 144 Hz, and HDMI 2.0 caps at 1080p 240 Hz. So... Yeah. 600 Hz refresh rate is definitely not a thing.

[Legit_Turtle]

On 8/7/2015 at 11:36 AM, Grrizz said:

144 divides into 24 evenly which is good for 3D movies, 120 divides into 24 unevenly which is fine for 2D but not ideal for 3D, 120 has the benefit of also evenly dividing into 30 and 60 so which is best to use depends on what you are viewing (only minor differences though).

120/24=5

 

Do the math.